DDN on the Importance of This Election

Source

Three factors, at least, limit the impact of the election.

One is that the two candidates agree on a broad range of important matters. They have different attitudes about Iraq, for example, but they are both proposing roughly the same course now that we’re in the country.

As for the broader war on terrorism, John Kerry would not lie down and play dead. George Bush cannot look for new countries to invade.

Second, a president is not a dictator. He is limited by Congress, the courts, laws and the Constitution. He can set a tone and make some momentous war and peace decisions. But he has to muster a lot of support from public opinion.

Many argue that President Bush manipulated public opinion grossly to win support for the Iraq war. But he can’t always manipulate successfully. He has been battered by the public into agreeing to the creation of the 9/11 commission, into extending its life, into allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify and into talking to the commission himself.

A third factor is simply that some problems don’t care whether the president is a liberal or conservative. Iraq, world trade, the economy, inner-city problems, all these have lives of their own, with no absolute solution depending just on a presidential election.

Well, at least they think it is important. Earlier in the piece they make the argument that whomever wins, the world will go on, which of course it will. But let's examine their criteria here:

One is that the two candidates agree on a broad range of important matters. They have different attitudes about Iraq, for example, but they are both proposing roughly the same course now that we’re in the country.

I disagree with the editorial board on this point. One candidate is being very clear about a wide range of issues (that's Bush for the liberals who happen to stumble upon my humble site) including Iraq; and the other has taken most every side of most every issue (that's Kerry for the same crowd). That's not just a political slogan, it is fact. Sen. Kerry's record can not lie. In the Internet age of Google, you just can't get away with that kind of thing.

Second, a president is not a dictator. He is limited by Congress, the courts, laws and the Constitution. He can set a tone and make some momentous war and peace decisions. But he has to muster a lot of support from public opinion.

True enough, but the problem here is that the editorial board thinks that the President "manipulated" popular support for the war. He did no such thing. Here is the relevant definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com: "To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously." The burden of proof is one the accuser to show that the President engaged in such behavior. They, and many before them, fail to do so.

A third factor is simply that some problems don’t care whether the president is a liberal or conservative. Iraq, world trade, the economy, inner-city problems, all these have lives of their own, with no absolute solution depending just on a presidential election.

Also true, but the problem with this point is that there is an overriding issue in the campaign this year: national security. I'd argue that it does matter whether or not the winner is liberal or conservative on all of those issues anyway. The President has the ability to influence public policy and opinion, Congress can either step on board and help move the country in the right direction or not. But the influence is there nonetheless...

Is it just me or does it sound more and more as if the editorial board is preparing the liberal masses in their readership that Kerry is going to lose?